The Psychophysiology of Political Ideology: Replications, Reanalyses, and Recommendations

Abstract

This article presents a large-scale, empirical evaluation of the psychophysiological correlates of political ideology and, in particular, the claim that conservatives react with higher levels of electrodermal activity to threatening stimuli than liberals. We (1) conduct two large replications of this claim, using locally representative samples of Danes and Americans;(2) re-analyze all published studies and evaluate their reliability and validity; and (3) test several features to enhance the validity of psychophysiological measures and offer a number of recommendations. Overall, we find little empirical support for the claim. This is caused by significant reliability and validity problems related to measuring threat-sensitivity using electrodermal activity. When assessed reliably, electrodermal activity in the replications and published studies captures individual differences in the physiological changes associated with attention shifts, which are unrelated to ideology. In contrast to psychophysiological reactions, self-reported emotional reactions to threatening stimuli are reliably associated with ideology.

Investigating the conservatism-disgust paradox in reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic: A reexamination of the interrelations among political ideology, disgust sensitivity, and pandemic response

“…For example, in multiple well-powered studies, Bakker and colleagues [45] recently failed to find any evidence of ideological differences on non-self-report, experiential (in this case, physiological) measures of sensitivity to disgusting stimuli. Similarly, Osmundsen and colleagues [54], conducted two further replications of this effect, as well as reanalyzed all published findings on ideology and physiological reactions to threatening and disgusting images, and concluded that there was little evidence for ideological differences. (Importantly, though, these replication attempts did not include measures of attention, and there is some evidence that liberals and conservatives may nonetheless differ in their propensity to attend to threatening and disgusting stimuli [55]).…”

Individual-Level Cognitive and Personality Predictors of Ideological Worldviews: The Psychological Profiles of Political, Nationalistic, Dogmatic, Religious, and Extreme Believers

“…Over the last decade, there has been a raging debate in political psychology regarding whether political conservatism is likely to be endorsed by threat-sensitive individuals (Hibbing, Smith, & Alford, 2014), whose sensitivity to threat might even be visible in psychophysiological recordings (Smith & Warren, 2020). Whereas some research groups observe relationships between physiological predispositions and political inclinations (Dodd et al, 2012;Knoll, O'Daniel, & Cusato, 2015;Oxley et al, 2008;Smith et al, 2011), recent critical replications have failed to conclude that electrodermal activity is a reliable index of threat sensitivity (Bakker et al, 2020;Osmundsen et al, 2021). Could it be that instead of threat sensitivity, the underlying difference between political conservatives and liberals rests in sensory caution instead?…”

Resistance or Capitulation? How Discrete Emotions Shape Citizens’ Interactions With the Administrative State

“…The most common approach to measuring emotions in the psychological literature is to use explicit self-reports (Brader and Marcus 2013: 187). Implicit measures of, for example, skin conductance and heart rate variability have also been used (Bakker et al, 2020; Osmundsen et al, Forthcoming), but although implicit measures can handle common issues pertaining to self-reporting, such as social desirability bias, self-reports remain the only viable way if the goal is to differentiate between different emotions of the same valence (for discussions, see Brader and Marcus 2013). Another important advantage of the self-report approach is that it allows us to tap naturally occurring emotions, instead of artificially inducing them through stimuli in an experiment.…”